Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Muslims Are What Muslims Believe http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1410644071 Message started by Taipan on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:34am

Title: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Taipan on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:34am

Quote:

Here is a list of the most important of those laws, from Sharia for Dummies:
• Jihad defined as “ to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim.
•A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.
•A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking, and in some cases of rape.
•A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.
•It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
•A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
•A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of (1) an apostate; (2) an adulterer; (3) a highway robber.
•A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.
•Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
•Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission.
•It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims.
•A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
•Banks must be Sharia-compliant, with interest not allowed.
•No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs. Women in such low-level jobs cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
•A non-Muslim cannot rule over a non-Muslim minority.
•Homosexuality is punishable by death.
•There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.
•Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her.
•Divorce is only in the hands of the husband, and is easy as saying “I divorce you.”
•There is no common property between husband and wife, and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
•A woman inherits half of what a man inherits.
•A man has the right to have up to four wives, a wife has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
•The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.
•The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
•A woman loses custody if she remarries.
•To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.
•A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered Awrah — a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face to be exposed, others don’t.
•A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/09/muslims-muslims-believe/

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:15am

What do the 'vast majority' do NOT accept from the list of Islamic doctrines?

Brain, Paki Bvgger, Gandy et all, please explain.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:18am

The definition of "Jihad" is wrong I believe. Getting one of the most basic tenants of Islam wrong rather renders the rest of the list pointless, don't you think Taipan?

You do realise also that admitting to using a "Dummy's" source rather proves what everybody already believes about you? :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:25am

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

It's a thread started by Taipan: it was always going to be pointless (and aimed at the usual Dummies - Soren, et al.).

Poor old Taipan needs to come out from under his bed and start living in the real world.

Living one's entire life in irrational fear is no life at all.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:33am

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

The definition of "Jihad" is wrong I believe. Getting one of the most basic tenants of Islam wrong.......

We all know you are a totally clueless Islamic apologist who is wrong about most things relating to Islam, you put respect for ancient beliefs before respect for humanity.

You should read the Book Of Jihad by the Islamic scholar Ibn Nuhaas,was Ibn Nuhaas wrong,why do all muslims say this is the best book on jihad?

https://archive.org/details/TheBookOfJihadByIbnNuhass

When it comes to Islam i will believe what Islamic scholars have written over the lies from Islamic apologists.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Yadda on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:35am

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:25am:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

greggerypeccary,

What is 'irrational' about fearing the REAL INTENT of moslem violence against us, as has been expressed by moslems who live in our suburbs, and walk in our main street ?

greggerypeccary,

THIS IS WHAT ISLAM IS, AND WHAT ISLAM PROMOTES IN THE WORLD [i.e. WHEREVER MOSLEMS ARE FOUND];

IMAGE...

Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
Moslems, religious bigots, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' and tolerant ISLAM and moslems really are - towards those who don't hold with the views ~~of ISIS~~ of ISLAM and moslems.

Moslems on a Sydney street, openly demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
.....the 'religious' right to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

greggerypeccary,

Accusing other people of being 'irrational' because you are too stupid, to recognise what is true, and to recognise the truth about what ISLAM is, just demonstrates the extent of your own irrational state of mind.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:39am

Yadda wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:35am:

greggerypeccary,
Accusing other people of being 'irrational' because you are too stupid, to recognise what is true, and to recognise the truth about what ISLAM is, just demonstrates the extent of your own irrational state of mind.

I don't live in irrational fear.

You do.

Guess who has the better life ;)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Yadda on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:48am

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:39am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:35am:

I don't live in irrational fear.

You do.

Guess who has the better life ;)

greggerypeccary,

Tell me, what does this phrase mean ?

"in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"

IMAGE....

"Do not speak about ISLAM's wrongdoing!!!"

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:52am

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

The definition of "Jihad" is wrong I believe. Getting one of the most basic tenants of Islam wrong.......

No, you're clueless one. Taipan's post and now your's assumes there is only one definition of "Jihad". There are actually several. "In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle" or "resisting"."

That does not necessarily have to be a physical struggle, which is the exclusive definition that you're using. Most Islamic scholars accept that it can also mean a personal religious struggle. The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)"

Quote:

Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Within the context of the classical Islamic law, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in the Islamic God (Allah) and do not acknowledge the submission to Muslims,[6] and so is often translated as "Holy War",[7][8][9] although this term is controversial.[10] According to the Dictionary of Islam[3] and Islamic historian Bernard Lewis, in the large majority of cases jihad has a military meaning.[11] Javed Ghamidi states that there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers.[12]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad]

So, claiming that it exclusively refers to armed struggle against "infidels" is wrong.

As always, you show us the depth of your bigotry Baron. You search for and always find the worst possible light in which to portray Muslims and Islam. ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:53am

Yadda wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:48am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:39am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:35am:

I don't live in irrational fear.

You do.

Guess who has the better life ;)

greggerypeccary,

Tell me, what does this phrase mean ?

"in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"

"Do not speak about ISLAM's wrongdoing!!!"

It means that you have decided to use obfuscation in a bid to divert attention away from the fact that you live your life in irrational fear, while I do not.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:55am

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:39am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:35am:

I don't live in irrational fear.

You do.

Guess who has the better life ;)

Can I join your club, Gregg? I don't live in irrational fear of Muslims. I am not an Islamophobe. Can we call it, the "Islamophobe, phobic's club"? IPC for short. ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:10am

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:18am:

The definition of "Jihad" is wrong I believe. Getting one of the most basic tenants of Islam wrong.......

You are the clueless one who uses wiki instead of Islamic sources when it comes to Islam.

Jihad is not always against the infidels,a muslim who is not following Islam correctly is called a munafiq (hypocrite), allah the most merciful of those who show mercy approves of jihad against the hypocrites.
islamqa.info/en/42534

I wonder what the Oldest Islamic website on the internet says about Jihad-
islamqa.info/en/search?key=jihad

The Ahmadi muslims have dropped the obligation for Jihad and believe in separation of mosque and state, the Ahmadi cannot call themselves muslims where they originated from in Pakistan they can be jailed for outraging the religious beliefs of a muslim in Pakistan.

Apologists like you ignore that bad stuff from muslims,your moral bankruptcy puts respect for ancient beliefs before respect for humanity.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:20am

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:10am:

You are the clueless one who uses wiki instead of Islamic sources when it comes to Islam.

Attacking the source is pretty silly. It shows it knows what its talking about by referencing other works Baron. Islamic sources included.

So, how about you refute what it says?

Quote:

Jihad is not always against the infidels,a muslim who is not following Islam correctly is called a munafiq (hypocrite), allah the most merciful of those who show mercy approves of jihad against the hypocrites.
islamqa.info/en/42534

I wonder what the Oldest Islamic website on the internet says about Jihad-
islamqa.info/en/search?key=jihad

The Ahmadi muslims have dropped the obligation for Jihad and believe in separation of mosque and state, the Ahmadi cannot call themselves muslims where they originated from in Pakistan they can be jailed for outraging the religious beliefs of a muslim in Pakistan.

Apologists like you ignore that bad stuff from muslims,your moral bankruptcy puts respect for ancient beliefs before respect for humanity.

Whereas you only seek out the bad stuff because you have a preconceived notion in your noggin to satisfy your Islamophobic bigotry. None of the things you just quoted negate the points the Wikipedia article said. Sometimes it better to go to a general article which provides a broad overview of a topic than it is to seek out specific examples. It allows you to understand the concept, rather than just focus on examples. Having an open mind also helps. However, we know in your case that isn't possible. ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by wally1 on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:31am

Yadda wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:48am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:39am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 10:35am:

I don't live in irrational fear.

You do.

Guess who has the better life ;)

greggerypeccary,

Tell me, what does this phrase mean ?

"in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"

IMAGE....

"Do not speak about ISLAM's wrongdoing!!!"

If the people in the land are blind, how can they see or know that the king has one eye?

Who taught you that,your priest?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:40am

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:10am:

You are the clueless one who uses wiki instead of Islamic sources when it comes to Islam.

Attacking the source is pretty silly. It shows it knows what its talking about by referencing other works Baron. Islamic sources included.

So, how about you refute what it says?

Quote:

If you like wiki try this list of expeditions led by Muhammad, take note of the first expedition which was highway robbery to relieve the muslims from poverty, they cite Islamic sources.
I would be an ex muslim who did this page-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

13 muslim countries have the death penalty for the crime of becoming an atheist,is this the Islam you are so keen to defend?
www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE9B900G20131210
Do you believe the people who live in those countries that have the death penalty for becoming an atheist are Islamophobic bigots?

Of course the morally bankrupt like you hurl slurs at critics of this belief that executes people for thought crimes.

Of course if it was christians behaving like muslims apologists like you would be squealing like a stuck pig.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:28pm

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

Here you are:

There is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite the surfeit of contemporary apologetics. Dr. Tina Magaard—a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual analysis—published detailed research findings in 2005 (summarized in 2007) comparing the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard concluded from her hard data-driven analyses:

The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree [emphasis added]. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with.

For example, in her 2007 essay “Fjendebilleder og voldsforestillinger i islamiske grundtekster” [“Images of enemies and conceptions of violence in Islamic core scriptures”], Magaard observed,

There are 36 references in the Koran to expressions derived from the root qa-ta-la, which indicates fighting, killing or being killed. The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean “to struggle” or “to make an effort” rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle. Only a single ja-ha-da reference (29:6) explicitly presents the struggle as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenomenon. But this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Koran, and even more in the Hadith.

Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, the independent study of Australian linguist and renowned Arabic to English translator, Paul Stenhouse, claimed the root of the word jihad appears forty times in the Koran. With four exceptions, Stenhouse maintained, all the other thirty-six usages in the Koran, and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries—the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam—and to ordinary people, meant and means, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer, E. W. Lane: “He fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” A concordant modern Muslim definition, relevant to both contemporary jihadism and its shock troop “mujahideen” [holy warriors; see just below], was provided at the “Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research,” at Al Azhar University— in 1968, by Muhammad al-Sobki:

[T]he words Al Jihad, Al Mojahadah, or even “striving against enemies” are equivalents and they do not mean especially fighting with the atheists . . . they mean fighting in the general sense.
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/09/11/911-and-jihad-terror-a-legacy-of-over-13-centuries-not-13-years/

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:31pm

Erudite, honest Danish intellectuals, and academics, spanning 176 years, from Søren Kierkegaard, to, at present, Lars Hedegaard and Tina Magaard, have openly expressed forthright truths about Islam. It is only now, in our sad era, that the free expression of such honest wisdom has been threatened by the mutually abetting totalitarian scourges of cultural relativism, and Islamic supremacism.
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/02/25/kierkegaard-hedegaard-magaard-and-islam/

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:45pm

Soren wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:

I agree, old chap. It’s just what the jihadis say about their religion, no?

That’s the benefit of living in a multicultural society, eh? There are no right or wrong answers here, old chap. Rich tapestry, innit.

Please feel free to share your marvellous culture with us - we’re all friends here. Cheese, kebabs, homos, a nice bit of sausage, we’ll have it all.

Thank you for sharing, dear boy.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:57pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:

I agree, old chap. It’s just what the jihadis say about their religion, no?

No.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 5:34pm

Soren wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:

I agree, old chap. It’s just what the jihadis say about their religion, no?

No.

Now now, dear boy, I distinctly read your Soren Kierkergaard writing that Christianity is not about reason per se, but a leap of faith.

Your Danish chaps have a lot more in common with Muhammed than you’d care to admit.

We’re always free to disagree, old boy. That’s what makes us the rich, open society we pride ourselves on, no?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:45pm

Taipan wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:34am:

Quote:

Here is a list of the most important of those laws, from Sharia for Dummies:
• Jihad defined as “ to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim.

As HB has demonstrated, that is not necessarily true.

[quote]
•A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.

As can most politico-religious leaders. Legitimacy can be gained through many means. In the case of Caliph, originally it was from direct linage to the Prophet. After that, it became a case of either being chosen by acclaim or by self-proclamation. History is replete with numerous examples of similar situations allowing the creation of Princes, Kings, Emperors, etc.

Quote:

•A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking, and in some cases of rape.

As were kings in other political systems. Is this important? ::)

Quote:

•A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

[quote]
Recipients

According to the Quran, there are eight categories of people (asnaf) who qualify to receive zakat funds:[21][22]

Those living in absolute poverty (Al-Fuqarā').
Those restrained because they cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn).
The zakat collectors themselves (Al-Āmilīna 'Alaihā).
Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam (Al-Mu'allafatu Qulūbuhum).
People whom one is attempting to free from slavery or bondage. Also includes paying ransom or blood money (Diyya). (Fir-Riqāb)
Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn).
Those working in God's way (Fī Sabīlillāh).
Children of the street / Travellers (Ibnus-Sabīl).

According to the Hadith, the family of Muhammad should not consume any Zakat. Zakat should not be given to one's own parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, or spouses. Also, it is forbidden to disburse zakat funds into investments instead of being directly given to those who are in need.[23]

Some scholars disagree whether the poor who qualify should include Non-Muslims. Some state that Zakat may be paid to non-Muslims, but only after the needs of Muslims have been met.[23]

Fi Sabillillah is the most prominent asnaf in Southeast Asian Muslim societies, where it broadly construed to include funding missionary work, Quranic schools and anything else that serves the community (ummah) in general.[24] Zakat can be used to finance a Jihad effort in the path of Allah. Zakat money should be used provided the effort is to raise the banner of Islam.[25][26]

Additionally, the zakat funds may be spent on the administration of a centralized zakat collection system.[13]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat#Recipients]Source[/url]

So, the Zakat can be used to finance a Jihad, however it isn't necessary nor is it obligatory. The Zakat is also not quite the same as "alms":

Quote:

In Islam, the concept of charitable giving is generally divided into voluntary giving, or Sadaqah and the Zakat, an obligatory practice governed by a specific set of rules within Islamic jurisprudence, and intended to fulfill a well defined set of theological and social requirements. For that reason, while Zakat plays a much larger role within Islamic charity, Sadaqah is possibly a better translation of Christian influenced formulations of the notion of 'alms'.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alms#Islam]Source[/url]

So we see a deliberate misconstruing of the term "alms" and Zakat, which rather indicates this is bullshit. ::)

No wonder it's called a "Dummies' guide to Sharia". ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:45pm

Taipan wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:34am:

Quote:

Here is a list of the most important of those laws, from Sharia for Dummies:
[...]
•It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

How does this differ from the Divine Right of Kings in European and Asian tradition?

[quote]
•A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

Yet we have in our midst one who has done that and has not been killed. Perhaps this isn't necessarily a commandment as much as a suggestion? ::)

Quote:

•A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of (1) an apostate; (2) an adulterer; (3) a highway robber.

AIUI under specific circumstances only.

Quote:

•A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

Again, only under specific circumstances:

Quote:

Does Islam really allow the killing of innocent unbelievers?

This is one misunderstanding that keeps rising up against Islam. Islam does not in anyway allow for the killing of any innocent soul. I have gathered some of the Noble Verses that I am aware of that deal directly with war and peace to shed some light upon my readers.

Noble Verses that order the killing of the enemies:

Let us look at Noble Verses 9:28-29 "O ye believe! Truly the pagans are unclear; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear povery, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, For Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Let us look at Noble Verse 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

As we clearly see in the above Noble Verses, the laws of killing the unbelievers or the pagans were for particular and specific times, and not for all times and all places. Notice the quotes "...after this year..." and "...when the sacred months have passed...".

It is important to know that when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him started preaching Islam, he had to deal with 360 Arab pagan tribes at first, and he and his followers had to go through a lot of battles that were imposed upon them by the pagans who were threatened by the new System and Wonderful Religion of Islam.

[url=http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm]Source[/url]

Quote:

•Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

Yes but again, only under specific circumstances. They are not general punishments handed out on a whim.

Quote:

•Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission.

Actually they aren't, this is bullshit. ::)

Quote:

•It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims.

I can't find any reference to the first supposed "crime". I suspect the others are inflated as well. ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:45pm

Taipan wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:34am:

Quote:

Here is a list of the most important of those laws, from Sharia for Dummies:
[...]
•A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

Actually, it's the other way around:

[quote]
Generally speaking, and this is also the majority view, a Muslim cannot inherit from a non-Muslim. Although the Hanafi fiqh does allow a Muslim to inherit from an apostate.

[url=http://www.islam101.com/sociology/inheritance.htm]Source[/url]

Quote:

•Banks must be Sharia-compliant, with interest not allowed.

How is this a bad thing? ::)

Quote:

•No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs. Women in such low-level jobs cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

I can't find any reference to testimony of those from "low-level jobs". However, on the issue of custody:

Quote:

Islamic law stipulates that physical custody of the children must go to a Muslim who is in good physical and mental health, and is in the best position to meet the children's needs. Different jurists have established various opinions of how this might best be done. Some have ruled that custody is awarded to the mother if the child is under a certain age, and to the father if the child is older. Others would allow older children to express a preference. Generally, it is recognized that young children and girls are best cared for by their mother.

Since there are differences of opinion among Islamic scholars about child custody, one might find variations in local law. In all cases, however, the main concern is that the children are cared for by a fit parent who can meet their emotional and physical needs.

[url=http://islam.about.com/od/marriage/ss/stepstodivorce_5.htm]Source[/url]

Which is rather different to what is claimed.

Quote:

•A non-Muslim cannot rule over a non-Muslim minority.

In a word, bullshit.

Quote:

•Homosexuality is punishable by death.

The same as it is in Christianity, apparently.

Quote:

•There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

Heavily debatable as we have seen in this forum. ::)

Quote:

•Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her.

Can't find any reference to that.

Quote:

•Divorce is only in the hands of the husband, and is easy as saying “I divorce you.”

Bullshit. Women have the right of Divorce as well, under Islamic law.

Quote:

•There is no common property between husband and wife, and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

Not true.

Quote:

It is importance to differentiate between inheritance entitlement (mirath) of the widow and the maintenance allowance (nafaqah) of the wife. The two are separate issues.

INHERITANCE
When a Muslim dies there are four duties which need to be performed. These are:
1. payment of funeral expenses
2. payment of his/ her debts
3. execution his/ her will
4. distribution of remaining estate amongst the heirs according to Sharia

Assuming the first 3 duties have been performed the inheritance share of the widow is one-eight (1/8) if the deceased left behind any children or agnatic grandchildren h.l.s. (son’s son; son’s son’s son; son’s daughter etc.)
If the deceased did not leave behind any children or agnatic grandchildren h.l.s. the share of the widow is one-quarter (1/4).
If there is more than one widow they share in the 1/8 or 1/4 as the case may be.

The heirs become owners of the estate of the propositus upon his death.

Note: Only a Muslim widow inherits from her Muslim husband. A non-Muslim wife (Christain/ Jew) does not inherit from her Muslim husband but she can be mentioned in his Will. Non-Muslims cannot inherit from their Muslim relatives according to the 4 Islamic schools of jurisprudence.

[url=http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?16498-widows-inheritance]Source[/url]

Quote:

•A woman inherits half of what a man inherits.

See above.

Quote:

•A man has the right to have up to four wives, a wife has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

Wrong.

Quote:

•The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

No. That is bullshit. ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:45pm

Taipan wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:34am:

Quote:

Here is a list of the most important of those laws, from Sharia for Dummies:
[...]
•The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

That is true unfortunately.

[quote]
•A woman loses custody if she remarries.

Bullshit.

Quote:

•To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.

No, that is not right. This is conflating adultery with rape. To prove adultery, a woman must have four witnesses. Rape can be proved through other means of evidence.

Quote:

•A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered Awrah — a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face to be exposed, others don’t.

Wrong. That is the interpretation that some Muslims place on the Q'ran which states that only the head and the genitals must be covered.

Quote:

•A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery.

I can't find any reference to this.

It appears to me that there is more wrong than there is right with this "Dummies" book. ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:16pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:45pm:

Quote:

•To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.

No, that is not right. This is conflating adultery with rape. To prove adultery, a woman must have four witnesses. Rape can be proved through other means of evidence.

So what is the arabic word for rape, is it zina which means unlawful intercourse or does that word apply to adultery and rape?

Yes the quote is right and as usual you are wrong, if the man does not confess to rape the woman needs 4 male witnesses to prove she has been raped.

If you think you are right you should bugger off over to the UAE and tell them they are doing it all wrong, women get jailed if they don't produce 4 male witnesses when reporting being raped-
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=rape+victim+jailed+uae

What about the homeland of Islam are they doing sharia properly?-
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=rape+victim+jailed-saudi

Do you think a rational person will believe your apologist bullshit or the reality of having to produce 4 male witnesses to prove rape in Saudi Arabia and the UAE?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:48pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:45pm:

Quote:

•To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.

No, that is not right. This is conflating adultery with rape. To prove adultery, a woman must have four witnesses. Rape can be proved through other means of evidence.

No, she does not. In Islam Law, you can prove rape through other means:

Quote:

Evidence Required

Obviously, it would be a horrible injustice for an innocent man to be falsely accused of a capital crime such as rape. To safeguard the rights of the accused, the crime must be proven with evidence in court. There have been various historical interpretations of Islamic law, but the most common legal practice is that the crime of rape may be proven by:

Witness testimony - The testimony of four witnesses to the act itself is traditionally the requirement to prove adultery under Islamic law. Most Islamic scholars, however, recognize that adultery is voluntary while rape is coerced. Thus they have moved beyond requiring this evidence alone to prove sexual assault.
Confession - The full and complete confession of the perpetrator is accepted as evidence under Islamic law.
Physical evidence - Even in early Islamic history, many Islamic jurists accepted physical evidence to prove a woman's lack of consent. As forensic science becomes more adept at providing physical evidence of sexual assault, such evidence is more commonly accepted.

These strict evidence requirements are needed for rape to be considered a capital offense . If the sexual assault cannot be proven to such a degree, Islamic courts may have discretion to find the man guilty but order a less severe punishment, such as jail time or monetary fines. According to several classical interpretations of Islam, the victim is entitled to monetary compensation for her loss as well, in addition to the state asserting its right to prosecute.

[url=http://islam.about.com/od/crime/f/rape.htm]Source[/url]

Further, it depends about how Sh'ria is interpreted when legislated into law and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, Baron. In Iran, what is taken as proof for rape is:

Quote:

confession
witness
Qusameh (قسامه)
oath
Certainty of judge
[...]
Reference of law

According to the no. 5 one way of certainty of judge is the certificate of Iranian Legal Medicine Organization.

Being raped can be proved for judge by any method that can ensure the judge. in such cases the raped woman can ask for legal certificate from the local office of Iranian Legal Medicine Organization and use it at court. this organization makes different tests and investigations from cloths and body of woman and issues the official assessment. this is the usual procedure in such cases in Iran.

The four witnesses mentioned in Quran is for accusation of adultery to a chaste woman which is a different case.

[url=http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/10451/does-woman-need-four-witnesses-to-prove-rape-in-sharia-law]Source[/url]

Quote:

If you think you are right you should bugger off over to the UAE and tell them they are doing it all wrong, women get jailed if they don't produce 4 male witnesses when reporting being raped-
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=rape+victim+jailed+uae

Why do you assume they are doing it right, Baron? They using one interpretation of those Q'ranic verses. Other jurisdictions use other interpretations. You seem like most Takfiri to assume there is only one interpretation - your own. ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 8:01pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

Quote:

Why do you assume they are doing it right, Baron?

Like i said if you think they are wrong you should bugger off over there and set it right instead of bullshitting to everyone here.

I will take reality with the law of the land over your spineless apologetics.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:02pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 8:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

Quote:

Why do you assume they are doing it right, Baron?

So, in otherwords, you won't accept the reality that there are multiple interpretations to the one concept in Sh'ria Law?

How unsurprising. It's like your efforts to treat Islam and more importantly Muslims as they are all members of the Borg, controlled from Mecca. I suppose it makes them easier to argue against, rather than arguing to the reality that there are as many different interpretations of Islam as there are Muslims!

I also note your continued effort to attack the messenger (me) rather than address the message. Hardly surprising really for a Takifir mindset like yours. ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by freediver on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 5:03am

Quote:

How unsurprising. It's like your efforts to treat Islam and more importantly Muslims as they are all members of the Borg, controlled from Mecca.

Gandalf used that reasoning to justify Muhammed executing 800 Jews in one day.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 11:35am

Soren wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:28pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

I don't accept the validity of that source. It starts from a pre-concieved position and then attempts to find evidence to prove it. The reality is that like most words, "jihad" has multiple meanings, depending on the context in which it's used. In one context it means "armed struggle" in another it would mean "personal struggle". You however, like most bigots choose only the definition that supports your extreme viewpoint. Your mind is closed to any alternatives. ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 12:24pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 6:45pm:

Taipan wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 7:34am:

•To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.

No, that is not right. This is conflating adultery with rape. To prove adultery, a woman must have four witnesses. Rape can be proved through other means of evidence.

You are a dangerous fool, Brain, or you are a deliberate distorter.

Dubai sentences Norwegian woman who reported rape

A Norwegian woman has spoken out about the 16-month prison sentence she received in Dubai after reporting a rape incident to police.

Interior designer Marte Deborah Dalelv was on a business trip in Dubai when she says she was raped.

The 24-year-old reported the March attack to the police but found herself charged with having extramarital sex, drinking alcohol, and perjury.

Convicted earlier this week, she says she is appealing against the verdict.

The appeal hearing is scheduled for early September.

Describing the sentence as "very harsh", she told the AFP news agency: "I am very nervous and tense. But I hope for the best and I take one day at a time. I just have to get through this."

The case has angered rights groups and the authorities in Norway.

'Wanted'
Ms Dalelv says she had been on a night out with colleagues on 6 March when the rape took place.

She reported it to the police, who proceeded to confiscate her passport and seize her money. She was charged four days later on three counts, including having sex outside marriage.

Her alleged attacker, she said, received a 13-month sentence for extra-marital sex and alcohol consumption.

The Norwegian government had secured Ms Dalelv's conditional release so, since being charged, she has been living under the protection of the Norwegian Seamans' Centre in Dubai.

But she told Norway's NRK News that following her sentencing on Tuesday she was now officially wanted by the Dubai authorities.

"I should have been imprisoned since Tuesday," she said. "But I have been told they are not searching for me."

The sentence has been condemned by Norway's Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide who is quoted as saying that it "flies in the face of our notion of justice" and was "highly problematic from a human rights perspective".

The Norwegian authorities are reportedly trying to contact the authorities in Dubai about the situation.

The London-based Emirates Centre for Human Rights called on the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to which Dubai belongs, to quash Ms Dalelv's conviction.

It said the UAE's claims that it is attempting to end discrimination against women was undermined by a legal system that "prohibits the achievement of justice for cases of sexual violence against women".

According to the Emirates Centre for Human Rights, UAE law states a rape conviction can only be secured after a confession or as the result of testimony from four adult male witnesses to the crime.

Tensions
Dubai has undergone a rapid transformation in recent years, emerging as a five-star trade and tourism destination with its tax-free salaries and year-round sunshine.

It is now one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities with foreign workers and visitors greatly outnumbering the local population.

But it remains a deeply conservative region, and its strict laws have caught out foreigners in the past. Public displays of affection and drunkenness are frowned upon.

A British couple, Ayman Najafi and Charlotte Adams, were jailed for a month in 2010 after they shared what Mr Najafi described as an "innocuous peck on the cheek" in a restaurant. A witness said they had kissed on the mouth.

Another British couple, Vince Acors and Michelle Palmer, were jailed for three months in 2008 for having sex on a public beach - an allegation they denied.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 4:18pm

|dev|null wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 11:35am:

Soren wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 2:28pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 14^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

OK, YOU tell us the meaning of the 36 occurrences of 'jihad' in the Koran - how many refer to armed fighting and how many to inner spiritual struggle.

SHow us.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 5:46pm

You may not have heard of this word at your Madrassah, Soren but its called "interpretation". Perhaps you need to recognise that different people have different interpretations to your own? I know, it's a radical concept but well, it might be worth exploring. ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 8:19pm

The Danish linguist has done precisely that, Brain - interpretation.

36 mentions of jihad in the Koran - 1 reference to spiritual struggle, the other 35 are about actual violence.

Falsifiable research. Like all science, you can challenge it and show how it is wrong. Can you do it? Present your own interpretation that demonstrates her errors.

Go on, Brain. Show us. Don't just be full of shite as always. Here's your opportunity to actually demonstrate the truth of what you are saying.

Do it.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 8:37pm

So why is that interpretation right and all the other interpretations which state multiple meanings, depending upon context are wrong, Soren? I'd accept theirs, as they are invariably made by Muslims and Orientalist scholars over a linguist who as you're quoting them, more than likely is Islamophobic herself. ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 8:58am

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

Show us the other research that convinces you that of the 36 mentions of jihad in the Koran, 35 are not about fighting others.
That's all you have to do, Brain/breath - show us the evidence that is the basis of disputing the linguist's evidence.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 10:57am

Soren wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

Old boy focuses on evidence.

Yes, habibis, there is always a firsts, isn’t it.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by gandalf on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 11:36am

Soren wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

Show us the other research that convinces you that of the 36 mentions of jihad in the Koran, 35 are not about fighting others.

Soren, little known fact is that the Quran doesn't even use the word 'jihad' in the verses about fighting others/holy war. It uses an entirely different word - 'Qital'. Can you come up with a sensible reason why 'jihad' (literal meaning: strive or struggle) would mean "fighting (violently) against others" - when the actual verses about fighting violently uses an entirely different verb?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 11:37am

Soren wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

I wasn't aware that the Koran is an Arabic dictionary.

You ever think that the usage of the word might have changed in the last 1400 years in Muslim society?

No, of course not, they are all automatons who are all part of this Borg called "Islam". ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 11:54am

Gandy, read it again, this time with the aim of comprehending it.

There are 36 references in the Koran to expressions derived from the root qa-ta-la, which indicates fighting, killing or being killed. The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean “to struggle” or “to make an effort” rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle. Only a single ja-ha-da reference (29:6) explicitly presents the struggle as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenomenon. But this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Koran, and even more in the Hadith.

Got that?

Brain/Breath - as you were.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 12:14pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 11:36am:

Soren wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

Show us the other research that convinces you that of the 36 mentions of jihad in the Koran, 35 are not about fighting others.

There you go, you see. When the Muselman uses a certain word, he actually means another word - a carefully calculated example of Taqiyya written into their very foundational handbook - which, as the old boy shows, is clearly a training manual for killing each other off.

Talk about cunning. I must say, we're so lucky the old boy can read Danish. The Danes have it all over the Muselman when it comes to Arabic philology.

FD had better watch out. The old boy translating Danes translating Arabic is a step up from interpreting Abu's silence. We all love Danish, eh?

Marvellous stuff.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 12:41pm

Soren wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

You expect us to take serious a passage sourced from a Magazine that declares on it's masthead that, "Inside every Liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out"? You can't be serious. No, there is no problem with bias there, now is there Soren? No wonder you didn't put a link to it. Were you worried we'd realise just how bigoted it was? ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 1:53pm

|dev|null wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

Yes, but the old boy's magazine also comes up with pearls of wisdom like this:

Quote:

It is, technically speaking, true that there may be non-violent aspects to Jihad as well, for instance propaganda. However, this is true of all wars. The primary meaning of Jihad is violent, and has been so consistently for fourteen centuries. The ultimate goal of Islam and of Jihad is the global supremacy of Islam and of Islamic law, or sharia — in other words, world supremacy. It is very hard to get much more aggressive than that. Until that goal has been reached, every non-Muslim man, woman and child on this planet is a potential target for Jihad violence. Sometimes, Jihadists will even target Muslims who are not Islamic enough for their taste.

No need to disprove that the ultimate goal of Islam is personal submission to God. After all, this message is contained in all the other parts of the Quran that don't refer to head-hacking, limb-amputating, rape, slaughter and torture.

They just haven't translated these parts into Danish.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Caliph adamant on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:15pm

Soren wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

Show us the other research that convinces you that of the 36 mentions of jihad in the Koran, 35 are not about fighting others.That's all you have to do, Brain/breath - show us the evidence that is the basis of disputing the linguist's evidence.

Come on Brian show us!

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:25pm

Jihad:

Quote:

Current Usage
See also: Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad

The term 'jihad' has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. According to John Esposito, it can simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.[106] The relative importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy.
Muslim public opinion

A poll by Gallup showed that a "significant majority" of Muslim Indonesians define the term to mean "sacrificing one's life for the sake of Islam/God/a just cause" or "fighting against the opponents of Islam". In Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and Morocco, the majority used the term to mean "duty toward God", a "divine duty", or a "worship of God", with no militaristic connotations.[107] The terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.[108] Other responses referenced, in descending order of prevalence:

"A commitment to hard work" and "achieving one's goals in life"
"Struggling to achieve a noble cause"
"Promoting peace, harmony or cooperation, and assisting others"
"Living the principles of Islam"[109]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Muslim_public_opinion]

Looks like opinion is, as I've pointed out, divided. No one single definition is used. What does that do to the bedrock of your bigotry Adamant? ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by gandalf on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:34pm

From Soren's article:

Quote:

The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean “to struggle” or “to make an effort” rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle.

Rubbish. There is plenty of room for doubt.

Even where it says something like "strive (jihad) against the unbelievers", it is entirely plausible that the meaning is through peaceful and civil debate and discourse. In fact this is all but implicit given the recurring Quranic theme of doing everything to avoid physical violence and to treat other people respectfully and peacefully. And I reiterate the point - if the 'J-H-D derived words really refers to lawful warfare, then why do the verses that are explicity about lawful warfare use words with a completely different root?

And I am fully aware that many (most?) scholars would argue that it means physical violence, but that is merely a reflection of the corruption in islam brought about by abandoning the rational and free thinking intones of the Quran. But reform has to start somewhere, and I have no doubt that once this ludicrous anti-rational 'ahadith-cultist' phase runs its course, yet another islamic enlightenment will emerge.

Now cue mocking hysterical laughter.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Caliph adamant on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:52pm

|dev|null wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

Jihad:

Quote:

I never asked you anything on this thread so it proves eff all!

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:59pm

Adamant wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:52pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

Jihad:

Quote:

I never asked you anything on this thread so it proves eff all!

Was that an extreme response? ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 4:20pm

Why don't you ask the ISIS and Hamas
and Hezb'allah tuff eggs what jihad means, Brain?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Hot Breath on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 4:48pm

Soren wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

Why don't you ask the ISIS and Games and Hezb'allah turf eggs what jihad means, Brain?

Who is this Brain?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 5:16pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

And I reiterate the point - if the 'J-H-D derived words really refers to lawful warfare, then why do the verses that are explicity about lawful warfare use words with a completely different root?

Ah.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by gandalf on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 6:34pm

Ah?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 6:50pm

The Koran does not teach humility:

7 minutes 15 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3yr0kMhuw

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 8:25pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:

From Soren's article:

Quote:

Might be plausible if the Koran was a text of a people who vanished long ago and about whom we know nothing. But it's not.

It is utterly implausible given Mohammed's example and the example of his followers and successors. THEIR interpretation, their meaning is fighting with swords to spread Islam, not spiritual exercises and town hall debates.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 8:28pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 6:34pm:

Ah?

I mean, ah - the old linguistic switcheroo.

A similar cunning ruse occurred in Christianity. Until the Middle Ages, the idea of the devil as we understand him did not exist. Jesus never mentioned the devil, and the Torah uses different names to describe what Christians came to perceive as a horned red figure with a tail. Lucifer, Moloch, "the Beast"in the New Testament Book of Revelation - all were merged to become one personification of evil: Satan.

The ancients certainly believed in dark forces, but the idea of two universal forces, good and evil, pitted again each other since Creation did not exist until the first millennium. It is not a pagan idea, and it is certainly not a Jewish idea.

Nietzsche believed that evil was invented by the Jews - not as a theological construct, more a sense of resentment born from their history of enslavement. But the devil was a certainly a Medieval Christian creation, borrowed also by Islam.

As I understand it, it would make sense that the notion of jihad would have its origins in the idea of violent conflict. Muhammed’s audience lived through war. The cities they lived in and traded with were always swapping hands. Populations were constantly being enslaved or used as mercenaries. The sides they fought for switched rulers, and soldiers switched armies. The very purpose of Islam, if we are to believe its founder, was to bring peace to an ever-shifting world of violence and chaos.

Back then, the metaphor of war to describe the spiritual/ethical struggle would have made sense. The same idea was a constant theme in Shakespeare, and the theme of the Bhagavad Gita, the chapter in the Vedic Mahabharata where God works as the main character’s advisor in a war between two families.

Just as Shakespeare used a family feud as a metaphor for love in Romeo and Juliet, and the Bhagavad Gita uses war as a metaphor for overcoming your own desires, war was used by Muhammed to define the struggle of ethics - a struggle as much within yourself as outside yourself.

Many misunderstand this struggle because we labour under the bastardized Medieval yoke of personified good and evil. The ancients had quite a different idea of this struggle, and within the heart of the monotheistic religions, the source is still there to be found for those who choose to look.

Forgive me for not sticking with ah.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 8:47pm

Should have stayed with Ah.

'War was used by Mohammed to define the struggle of ethics'. That is, Mohammed used war to illustrate what the meant by 'walking with god' to coin a phrase. War as spiritual cleanser. Killing others as the outward, visible aspect of yout inner struggles, not to say demons. You can see why Islam is hideous leap backward after the example of Jesus.

Parallels with literature are limited and in your argument, completely bogus. Muslims are not travelling thespians and jihad is not theatre.

Ah had depth.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 9:06pm

Soren wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 8:47pm:

Should have stayed with Ah.

Thanks, old boy. In future, I’ll try. Jihad, innit.

Shakespeare did not write for travelling Thespians, or even people watching movies or Youtube. He wrote for actors he knew in the Rose and the Globe theatres. He thought his plays would be one-hit wonders. He put everything he had - his "art" - into his sonnets.None of Shakespeare’s plays exist. All we have are the words certain audience members wrote - probably rival producers who wanted to steal the work.

Shakespeare’s actors threw out their handwritten lines.

Likewise, Muhammed did not write for backpacker jihadis with rocket launchers and AKs. Muhammed did not write at all. He spoke to people who came to listen.

Parallels with literature are there because it’s how we engage with religious texts - texts that, like Shakespeare’s plays - were written afterwards - from memory, or people furiously listening and scribbling and maybe hoping that, one day, they might make a buck out of it all.

Ah.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 9:47pm

Freud wanted to displace Shakespeare (in Bloom's reckoning). That somehow Mohammed was Shakespeare's forerunner is a novel idea and it looks very much like all your own.
That would mean that Freud was, subconsciously, trying to displace Mohammed.

Never mind the bollocks, here is the Sex Pistols, innit.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 9:56pm

Soren wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

Freud wanted to displace Shakespeare (in Bloom's reckoning). That somehow Mohammed was Shakespeare's forerunner is a novel idea and it looks very much like all your own.
That would mean that Freud was, subconsciously, trying to displace Mohammed.

Ever mind the bollocks, this is the Sex Pistols, innit.

Well spotted. I was, in my cunning example of Taqiyya, trying to think of a way to include Eros and Thanitos in my little discussion of good and evil.

Perhaps it says something about Freud’s "suspicion" that I’m unable to make the conceptual leap from good and evil to life and death.

Or we could just blame Islam. Never to mind the bollocks, isn’t it.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 10:21pm

If only the West could bring literature to the 20 minute eggs of the Middle East.
Alas, they believe the Koran to be the eternal word of Allah, not some unreliable memoirs of the Araby Kid. They know nuffin' of the joy of text.
You should tell them, though, that Mohammed was REALLY paving the way for Freud. See what they say. You could have one of Gandalf's entirely plausible civic discourses with them, real jihad, don't you know.
Go on, no harm in talking to them. What's the worst thing that could happen in a civic discourse?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 2:07pm

Soren wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

If only the West could bring literature to the 20 minute eggs of the Middle East.

What goes around comes around, old chap. 600 years ago, the Middle East brought literature to the West.

More accurately, the West pillaged Middle Eastern cities like Constantinople during the crusades and brought home the spoils: Plato, Aristotle, Tacitus, Pliny the elder. These written texts became the basis of the "rebirth" of Western civilization. They were preserved in the Muslim world because Islam valued the written text. Islam, after all, is a literary tradition. Up until the invention of the printing press, the West was largely illiterate.

In the Middle Ages, the church taught through oral stories, rituals and images. Islam pretty much banned visual representation. Islam's focus was the written word. Philosophy, poetry, essays: Islam has always personified itself as a literary culture.

How times change, eh? Today, the shoe is clearly on the other foot. If we're to believe some, the purest expression of Islam today is found in fundamentalist groups like the Taliban. Here, Islam is experienced through action and doctrine - and 50% of the population (women and girls) are actively discouraged from reading. The one thing the Western powers pride themselves on for their intervention in Afghanistan is girls' school enrollment and rising female literacy levels.

Always, absolutely, never ever. Things change, and things stay the same. The old switcheroo can be applied, it seems, to the rise and fall of empires, cultures and civilizations.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 7:21pm

The key to Western Europe's acquisition of the wisdom of the ancients was the siege and capture of the city of Toledo from the Moors in 1105 CE. They also captured the vast libraries the Moors had established there.

The libraries held thousands of:

Quote:

Greek, Roman, and Arabic books on philosophy and mathematics. These books included the classics of Rome and Greece, lost to the west for hundreds of years. The intellectual plunder lead to scholars from all over Europe to come to Toledo. Using Jewish interpreters, the scholars translated the Arabic books, and these works left lasting jealousies on the scholars of Europe. The texts included medicine, astrology, astronomy, pharmacology, psychology, physics, physiology, zoology, biology, botany, mineralogy, optics, chemistry, mathematics, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, music, meteorology, geography, mechanics, hydrostasis, navigation, and history. These transcripts helped to light the fire of the renaissance.

[url=http://jamesjkrefft.hubpages.com/hub/Moors-in-Spain-A-Height-of-a-Muslim-Nation]Source[/url]

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:17pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

If only the West could bring literature to the 20 minute eggs of the Middle East.

What goes around comes around, old chap. 600 years ago, the Middle East brought literature to the West.

That's an enduring furphy.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:48pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

These books included the classics of Rome and Greece, lost to the west for hundreds of years.

because of the Muslim invasion and subjugation of of the Eastern Roman Empire, cutting the Greek east off from the Latin West.

The translation of the classical Greek heritage into Latin and into Western vernaculars really took off when in 1453 Byzantium fell and the refugees to the West took the books they could rescue with them. This is when Greek literature was beginning to appear - the Arabs had no interest in Greek literature or poetry and had none of it translated by the conquered Jews and Christians who did the vast majority of the translations for them.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:56pm

So you keep saying, old chap. The illiterate barbarian just kept the papers in the safe, so to speak - just waiting for whitey to come and discover it all.

That makes so.much sense - especially when you look at history from the point of view of the old boy.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:59pm

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 2:07pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 10:21pm:

If only the West could bring literature to the 20 minute eggs of the Middle East.

What goes around comes around, old chap. 600 years ago, the Middle East brought literature to the West.

That's an enduring furphy.

Sorry, old dear. No more ahs.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:21pm

The Arabs were interested in Greek science and philosophy. They were not interested in literature (poetry, drama). They were not interested in learning Greek. Some did but it was not typical at all.
As a result, most of the translations were made by non-Arab dhimmis or converts.
Commentaries on the Arabic translations were then made by Muslim Arabs.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:29pm

Blah blah blah. You think that if you repeat something long enough, some of it might stick.

Problem is, you’re hardly a reliable source on the matter, no? Who’s going to believe an old boy with an axe to grind?

If you posed sane, calm and rational posts more often, you might occasionally be heard.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, dear. I’d like you to know that I’m always here for you.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:43pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:29pm:

You are an idiot, PB - and I say this in a caring, nurturing way.

Bernard Lewis in The Muslim Discovery of Europe:

We know of no Muslim scholar or man of letters before the eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language, still less of any attempt to produce grammars, dictionaries, or other language tools. Translations are few and far between. Those that are known are works chosen for practical purposes [philosophy being considered a practical discipline] and the translations are made by converts [who knew western languages before conversion] or non—Muslims.

The translators were without exception non-Muslims or new converts. Most were Christians, a few were Jews, and the remainder were members of the Sabian community.

There was no attempt to translate Greek poetry, drama, or history.

Discuss.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 1:10am

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

These books included the classics of Rome and Greece, lost to the west for hundreds of years.

Hang on a second. So, you're saying that the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 was the reason why the supposedly enlightened Christian West ignored Greek and Roman literature and science for nearly 1,000 years? Are you sure, Soren? ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:17am

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 1:10am:

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

These books included the classics of Rome and Greece, lost to the west for hundreds of years.

No, he's saying scholars fleeing the Ottomans brought classical texts to the West, and it's true. They did.

Arabic scholars, however, had already translated Greek texts, and applied them to Islamic philosophy:

Quote:

Throughout the eighth and ninth centuries (second and third centuries ah), a new impetus was given to the translation movement thanks to the enlightened patronage of three of the early Abbasid caliphs at Baghdad, al-Mansur, Harun and his son al-Ma'mun, who founded the House of Wisdom in Baghdad to serve as a library and institute of translation. It was during the reign of al-Ma'mun that the translation of medical, scientific and philosophical texts, chiefly from Greek or Syriac, was placed on an official footing. The major translators who flourished during al-Ma'mun's reign include Yahya ibn al-Bitriq, credited with translating into Arabic Plato's Timaeus, Aristotle's On the Soul, On the Heavens and Prior Analytics as well as the Secret of Secrets, an apocryphal political treatise of unknown authorship attributed to Aristotle.

...

Ibn Rushd continued the tradition of commenting on Aristotle's works initiated in Arab Spain by Ibn Bajja (Avempace) and in the East by al-Farabi. Ibn Rushd, however, produced the most extensive commentaries on all the works of Aristotle with the exception of the Politics, for which he substituted the Republic of Plato. These commentaries, which have survived in Arabic, Hebrew or Latin, earned him in the Middle Ages the title of the Commentator, or as Dante put it in Inferno V. 144, 'che'l gran commento feo' (he who wrote the grand commentary). Ibn Rushd actually wrote three types of commentaries, known as the large, middle and short commentaries, on the major Aristotelian treatises, notably the Physics, the Metaphysics, the Posterior Analytics, On the Soul and On the Heavens. In addition, he defended Aristotle against the onslaughts of al-Ghazali, the famous Ash'arite theologian, in a great work of philosophical debate entitled the Tahafut al-tahafut (Incoherence of the Incoherence), a rebuttal of al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-falasifa (Incoherence of the Philosophers).
...

The first genuine system-builder in Islam, however, was al-Farabi. He was the first outstanding logician of Islam, who commented on or paraphrased the six books of Aristotle's Organon, together with the Rhetoric and the Poetics, which formed part of the Organon in the Syriac-Arabic tradition and to which the Isagog of Porphyry, also paraphrased by al-Farabi, was added. He also wrote several original treatises on the analysis of logical terms, which had no parallels until modern times. He defended Aristotelian logic against the Arabic grammarians who regarded logic as a foreign importation, doubly superfluous and pernicious (see Logic in Islamic philosophy). He also laid down the foundations of Arab-Islamic Neoplatonism in a series of writings, the best-known of which is al-Madina al-fadila (Opinions of the Inhabitants of the Virtuous City). This treatise is inspired by the same utopian ideal as Plato's Republic (see Plato §14), but is essentially an exposition of the emanationist world-view of Plotinus to which a political dimension has been added. In that latter respect, it had hardly any impact on political developments in Islam, but it did inspire subsequent writers on political philosophy such as Ibn Bajja. Another great champion of the emanationist world-view was Abu 'Ali al-Husayn Ibn Sina (Avicenna), who was a confessed spiritual disciple of al-Farabi.

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H011

And blah blah blah. We could go on. We will.

Carry on camping, that's the old boy's motto.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 12:52pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:17am:

Arabic scholars, however, had already translated Greek texts, and applied them to Islamic philosophy:

Quote:

The major translators who flourished during al-Ma'mun's reign include Yahya ibn al-Bitriq, credited with translating into Arabic Plato's Timaeus, Aristotle's On the Soul, On the Heavens and Prior Analytics as well as the Secret of Secrets, an apocryphal political treatise of unknown authorship attributed to Aristotle.

'ello, 'ello,'ello, what's this then - Yahya ibn al-Bitriq (aka Johannes Serapion the Elder) nothing is known of the events of his life, except that he was a Christian physician, and lived in the second half of the 9th century.

Quote:

[quote]
Ibn Rushd continued the tradition of commenting on Aristotle's works initiated in Arab Spain by Ibn Bajja (Avempace) and in the East by al-Farabi. Ibn Rushd, however, produced the most extensive commentaries on all the works of Aristotle with the exception of the Politics, for which he substituted the Republic of Plato. These commentaries, which have survived in Arabic, Hebrew or Latin, earned him in the Middle Ages the title of the Commentator.
...

The first genuine system-builder in Islam, however, was al-Farabi. He was the first outstanding logician of Islam, who commented on or paraphrased the six books of Aristotle's Organon, together with the Rhetoric and the Poetics, which formed part of the Organon in the Syriac-Arabic tradition and to which the Isagog of Porphyry, also paraphrased by al-Farabi, was added..

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H011

And blah blah blah. We could go on. We will.

Carry on camping, that's the old boy's motto. [/quote]

So no translation by Muslims Arabs, only by non-Muslims. Arabs did the commenting on the translated texts and financed the translations. They did not themselves translate because they did not know Greek and Syriac well enough.

We know of no Muslim scholar or man of letters before the eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language, still less of any attempt to produce grammars, dictionaries, or other language tools. Translations are few and far between. Those that are known are works chosen for practical purposes [philosophy being considered a practical discipline] and the translations are made by converts [who knew western languages before conversion] or non—Muslims.

The translators were without exception non-Muslims or new converts. Most were Christians, a few were Jews, and the remainder were members of the Sabian community.

There was no attempt to translate Greek poetry, drama, or history.

Discuss. Or should I say comment?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by freediver on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 2:00pm

Quote:

As I understand it, it would make sense that the notion of jihad would have its origins in the idea of violent conflict. Muhammed’s audience lived through war.

Inflicted on them by outside forces, was it?

Quote:

The cities they lived in and traded with were always swapping hands.

Medina was not in anyone's hands until Muhammed turned up and kicked the Jews out.

Quote:

Back then, the metaphor of war to describe the spiritual/ethical struggle would have made sense.

So when Muhammed said to wage war on and kill the unbelievers, it was a metaphor?

Quote:

Likewise, Muhammed did not write for backpacker jihadis with rocket launchers and AKs. Muhammed did not write at all. He spoke to people who came to listen.

Ah, the rich literary tradition of Islam you were just telling us about. That must be why the Koran is such an enjoyable read.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 2:27pm

Soren wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:

[So no translation by Muslims Arabs, only by non-Muslims. Arabs did the commenting on the translated texts and financed the translations. They did not themselves translate because they did not know Greek and Syriac well enough.

Oh, I know, old chap. You've always been a big fan of Brain's pedantry. Still, it helps to read the words, eh?

Quote:

However, the shining star of al-Ma'mun's reign was the Nestorian Hunayn ibn Ishaq (d. ah 264/ad 873), who hailed from al-Hirah in Iraq and, jointly with his son Ishaq (d. ah 299/ad 911), his nephew Hubaysh and other associates, placed the translation of Greek medieval and philosophical texts on a sound scientific footing. The chief interests of Hunayn himself were medical, and we owe to him the translation of the complete medical corpus of Hippocrates and Galen, but Hunayn and his associates were also responsible for translating Galen's treatises on logic, his Ethics (the Greek original of which is lost) and his epitomes of Plato's Sophist, Parmenides, Cratylus, Euthydemus, Timaeus, Statesman, Republic and Laws. (Only the epitomes of the Timaeus and the Laws have survived in Arabic.)

The interest of Hunayn and his school in Galen, the outstanding Alexandrian physician and Platonist, is noteworthy and this philosopher-physician is a major figure in the history of the transmission of Greek learning into Arabic. Not only his sixteen books on medicine but a series of his logical and ethical writings were translated and played an important role in the development of Arabic thought. Apart from the epitomes of Plato's Dialogues already mentioned, his Pinax (list of his own writings), That the Virtuous can Profit from Knowing Their Enemies, That One Should Know His Own Faults and especially his Ethics have influenced moral philosophers from Abu Bakr al-Razi to Ibn Miskawayh and beyond.

Of the works of Aristotle, Hunayn's son Ishaq is responsible for translating the Categories, De interpretatione, On Generation and Corruption, the Physics, On the Soul, the Nicomachean Ethics and the spurious De Plantis, written by the Peripatetic philosopher Nicolaus of Damascus (first century bc). By far the most important Aristotelian treatise to be translated into Arabic during this period is the Metaphysics, known in the Arabic sources as the Book of Letters or the Theologica (al-Ilahiyat). According to reliable authorities, a little-known translator named Astat (Eustathius) translated the twelve books (excluding M and N) for al-Kindi, as did Yahya ibn 'Adi a century later. However, Ishaq, Abu Bishr Matta and others are also credited with translating some parts of the Metaphysics.

Equally important is the translation by Ibn Na'imah al-Himsi (d. ah 220/ad 835) of a treatise allegedly written by Aristotle and referred to in the Arabic sources at Uthulugia or Theologia Aristotelis. This treatise, which consists of a paraphrase of Plotinus' Enneads IV-VI, made by an anonymous Greek author (who could very well be Porphyry of Tyre), together with Proclus' Elements of Theology (known as the Pure Good or Liber de causis), thoroughly conditioned the whole development of Arab-Islamic Neoplatonism (see Neoplatonism in Islamic philosophy). Al-Kindi is said to have commented on the Theologia Aristotelis as did Ibn Sina and others, and al-Farabi refers to it as an undoubted work of Aristotle. A series of other pseudo-Aristotelian works also found their way into Arabic, including the already mentioned Secret of Secrets, De Plantis, Economica and the Book of Minerals.

Among other translators of Greek philosophical texts, we should mention Qusta ibn Luqa (d. ah 300/ad 912), Abu 'Uthman al-Dimashqi (d. ah 298/ad 910), Ibn Zur'ah (d. ah 398/ad 1008) and Ibn al-Khammar (d. ah 408/ad 1017), as well as the already-mentioned Abu Bishr Matta (d. ah 328/ad 940) and his disciple Yahya Ibn 'Adi. None of those translators made any significant or original contribution to Arabic philosophical literature, although they laid the groundwork for subsequent developments and served as the chief purveyors of Greek philosophy and science into the Islamic world. However, there were noteworthy exceptions: Abu Bishr Matta was a skilled logician, and the Jacobite Yahya ibn 'Adi stands out as the best-known writer on Christian theological questions and on ethics in Arabic. The Harranean Thabit ibn Qurra (d. ah 289/ad 901) was an outstanding mathematician and astronomer as well as a translator.

Enduring furphy or notable example of Taqiyya?

Discuss.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 2:34pm

freediver wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 2:00pm:

Quote:

As I understand it, it would make sense that the notion of jihad would have its origins in the idea of violent conflict. Muhammed’s audience lived through war.

Inflicted on them by outside forces, was it?

"Outside" forces? Good point, FD. This must be one of those questions that are just questions.

Muhammed's audience were non-Muslims. Muslims didn't exist back then. Muhammed invented them.

Cunning, no?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 7:29pm

Hunayn- Assyrian Christian
Al Himsi - Syrian Christian
Luqa - Melkite Christian

You - stupid PB.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 7:30pm

PB,

Hunayn- Assyrian Christian
Al Himsi - Syrian Christian
Luqa - Melkite Christian

You - stupid PB.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 8:58pm

Oh, old boy, by being such a pedant, you’re missing the entire point - those scholars (and schools) were funded by Muslim caliphs. Are you suggesting they were slaves?

They were influential intellectuals and administrators within Muslim.society - dare I say it, a multicultural Muslim society that promoted scholars of minority religions - approved monotheistic ones, anyway.

Never ever, eh?

Ban them.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:15pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 8:58pm:

The furphy and the outright falsification is that the conquering muslims did the intellectual heavy lifting of translating and therefore saving the classical heritage for the Christian, backward West. This is completely untrue. You tried to promote it in your stupid, grinning way by citing Arab sounding translators, trying to show that despite what I told you, Arab Muslims engaged in learning other languages- those of their dhimmis. But as so often the case, you turned out to be an ignorant, tendetious idiot because what is more important to you than anything else is playing to the gallery. And it doesn't matter that your gallery is packed with intellectually negligible Brains and Hot Shites. Your vanity, like theirs, makes you persist with stupidity even in the face of evidence presented to you so you don't have to once more go the way of the clown. But clown you must be. And so your confidently presented muslim trannslators of the western heritage had to climb down to being mere administrators and functionaries and agents of the actual intellectuals they conquered.

There were no muslim arab translators. There were commentators and there was an arab market for certain types of ancient texts - texts that could be used to justify Islam. Literature, presenting a completely different way of looking at and seeing the world was completely ignored and avoided.
There was muslim arab intellectual labour but it was entirely within the Islamic limits of thought and was decidedly not open to other, for muslim minds inferior ways of being in the world. It confined itself to producing commentary and Islamic apologia. There was no multiculturalism of the mind, no community of equals, no universalist pursuit of truth. Nothing has changed in the Islamic frame of intellectual activity since then.

Have all the bananas you want, PB, and tell us what tired nonsense you have thought of to impess the Brains of this world.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:46pm

Stupid, preening, grinning, tendentious, playing to the stalls, have a banana. Gee, where have we heard that before?

You love a jolly hissy before bedie byes, don’t you, dear?

You’re playing the old linguistic switcheroo yourself - one minute you claim no Arab scholars, the next no Arab translators, then its Arab Muslim translators, and on and on you go like an awful old wheeze.

You change your always, absolutely, never ever perameters like you change your nappies.

You have a nice lie down and stop being such a boring old shrieker.

Sorry - boring, Lutheran old shrieker.

We must be specific, no?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:57pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:46pm:

Good to see you realising that you have been shown up for the clown you are.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 11:02pm

Soren wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:46pm:

Good to see you realising that you have been shown up for the clown you are.

You’re really quite sad, aren’t you?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 11:48pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:46pm:

You’re playing the old linguistic switcheroo yourself - one minute you claim no Arab scholars, the next no Arab translators, then its Arab Muslim translators, and on and on you go like an awful old wheeze.

You change your always, absolutely, never ever perameters like you change your nappies.

No. I simple told you that you were promoting a furphy and showed you the evidence and its source. When you insisted on being an idiot about it, I simply rubbed your nose into your stupidity.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:04am

Soren wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 11:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 10:46pm:

No. I simple told you that you were promoting a furphy and showed you the evidence and its source. When you insisted on being an idiot about it, I simply rubbed your nose into your stupidity.

Quote the furphy I was promoting. I’m curious.

You know what happens when you rub my nose, old boy, but best not to air our dirty linen in public, thanks.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:22am

Interesting how the slang term "Furphy" has come to mean something different to what it originally meant in 1915... ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:29am

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:22am:

Interesting how the slang term "Furphy" has come to mean something different to what it originally meant in 1915... ::)

Gaaawd! !! Not this?! Not you!! !??

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:36am

Soren wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:29am:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:22am:

Interesting how the slang term "Furphy" has come to mean something different to what it originally meant in 1915... ::)

Gaaawd! !! Not this?! Not you!! !??

What's wrong, Soren? ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by freediver on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 7:17am

I think Gandalf's point is that the Caliphate did not destroy all of the texts that they did not destroy. Most historians will credit the empire with being a preserver of, if not a contributor to, some knowledge.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 10:51am

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 7:17am:

Rather like those in Christendom who preserved the few fragments of knowledge they had, FD. They weren't called the "Dark Ages" in Western Europe for nothing... ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Caliph adamant on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 11:41am

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 7:17am:

This is the view of Bertrand Russel in his History of Western Philosophy. Another reason the west stagnated whilst the muslims progressed was paper. They "extracted" the process from the Chinese and kept it secret from Europe.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 5:54pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:22am:

Interesting how the slang term "Furphy" has come to mean something different to what it originally meant in 1915... ::)

The old boy has his doublethink down pat. He can turn a silk purse into a pig’s ear. Only this week, he turned an anti-war poem into a rationale for carpet-bombing the Middle East.

In this thread he’s promoting his Clash of Civilizations schtick. You know, the Muselman is the enemy. The Muselman has always been the enemy. Always absolutely, never ever. EVER.

There are stilts involved. It’s all rather Daliesque. The old boy, you see, is a Freudian - sorry, Lutheran Freudian.

We wouldn’t want to spread any furphies here.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Karnal on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 6:08pm

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 7:17am:

I think Gandalf's point is that the Caliphate did not destroy all of the texts that they did not destroy. .

This is definitely one for the Wiki, FD. It meets all the criteria: Muslims destroying (or not destroying) things, the non-words of a Muslim, and your own interpretation.

You can source the Wiki with a link to this thread - evidence.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by gandalf on Sep 21^st, 2014 at 10:19am

gandalf's point?

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by freediver on Sep 21^st, 2014 at 12:12pm

Sorry, you lot all look the same to me.

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Brian Ross on Sep 21^st, 2014 at 12:22pm

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Sorry, you lot all look the same to me.

I bet you're a real hit at dinner parties with humour like that, Freediver. ::)

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by gandalf on Sep 21^st, 2014 at 7:17pm

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Sorry, you lot all look the same to me.

Yes, social psychologists have a term for it - its called outgroup homogeneity.

Its been studied to help in the understanding of prejudices.

Shurely Shum mishtake??

Title: Re: Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
Post by Soren on Sep 21^st, 2014 at 8:44pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 5:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 20^th, 2014 at 12:22am:

Interesting how the slang term "Furphy" has come to mean something different to what it originally meant in 1915... ::)

I proved you wrong, PB, so now you are back to the sh*t -eating grin and gibberish.